I can certainly sympathise, but I also agree with Sophiecentaurs position.

Instead of locking or deleting the thread, lets try a different tack. The problems are centred around the hypothesis put forward in your paper, not the practical aspects (i.e. the results you are getting from the circuit), so lets go back to looking at the circuit.

As the hypothesis is the cause of contention, it's best if we ignore it for now.

So...

I'm a zoologist by training and so this is all above my head. If I can summarise what I think you are saying:

You have a design for a circuit that, when you tested it, appeared to give more energy as heat than was being drawn from the battery. Is that correct?

So, how did you come up with the design? As Sophie pointed out, there's either something unique about your circuit that means it's never been spotted in similar circuits, or something could be out in the calculations, or you could have discovered something new.

Logged

witsend

'So, how did you come up with the design? As Sophie pointed out, there's either something unique about your circuit that means it's never been spotted in similar circuits, or something could be out in the calculations, or you could have discovered something new.'BenV

I cannot explain why it has never been spotted. If the calculations are out then some highly qualified engineers have not found the error. But this question is still open because I cannot get it to academic forums for accreditation.

It was the required result from my field model. Now how do we get past that one? The answer's in the field model. And thanks to Sophiecentaur's contribution anyone who would otherwise perhaps have taken the trouble to read it will now not do so.

I have NEVER assumed that the model, as written is publishable. What I was hoping is that someone qualified could bend their head around the problem and try and explain it in conventional terms. That exercise is beyond me. But if the logic in the paper is debatable - the logic in conventional physics is equally so - especially as this relates to quantum electrodynamics. It is a field that has achieved the greatest breakthroughs in science. But its proponents are in danger of putting it out of the realm of simple inspection. They protect it's excellence with a dedication that is better likened to the smug pretentions of the early Church. They took about 600 years to admit an error. I'd hate to think our scientists will take that long.

I found the fault with quantum electrodynamics - that I fondly believe is 'blocking' the progress of all science. I proved it on the circuit. But now I must defend my position by arguing the error with the use of mathematics. I can't. All I can do is apply simple logic.

I think Sophiecentaur took about four and a half minutes to 'scan' as he puts it, the entire paper - and then reply to me that it's nonsense. That writing took ten years to 'pen'.

My intention in putting it forward on this forum was in the wild hope that there would be such a person to try and understand it. I'm happy if the writing amuses people. I'm even happy if it is argued. But I can do nothing when it is dismissed without being read. That's the same attitude that the IET take when they won't forward my paper for review.

But if the logic in the paper is debatable - the logic in conventional physics is equally so - especially as this relates to quantum electrodynamics.

...

I found the fault with quantum electrodynamics - that I fondly believe is 'blocking' the progress of all science. I proved it on the circuit. But now I must defend my position by arguing the error with the use of mathematics. I can't. All I can do is apply simple logic.

But by your own admission, you do not understand the conventional physics. In order to decry it as wrong, you first need to understand it.

Quote

It is a field that has achieved the greatest breakthroughs in science. But its proponents are in danger of putting it out of the realm of simple inspection. They protect it's excellence with a dedication that is better likened to the smug pretentions of the early Church. They took about 600 years to admit an error. I'd hate to think our scientists will take that long.

Do be careful not to fall for the trap of thinking that because your interpretation has not yet been accepted, there is some kind of conspiracy in science. Science is pragmatic and scientists will admit when they are wrong. This sort of comment will buy you no friends here (you're not the first to suggest this sort of thing).

Quote

It was the required result from my field model. Now how do we get past that one?

We simply ignore your field model. How did you design the circuit? It's essential that you tease apart the results you have seen from your interpretation of those results, should you want people to seriously look at the results themselves.

I actually de-registered from the forum - ThAT Sophiecentaur - an example of 'pique' which you've accused me of before. Your preveious reference was inappropriate. But I've now re-registered. I'll tell you why. I realise that your reaction to my field model is entirely understandable. I'd overlooked the fact that you're at that age where you simply can't bend your mind around new concepts. How stupid of me. For a while there I thought your opinion mattered.

That you tend to bluster and complain, and dismiss my efforts with such wide, sweeping criticisms - rather than tackle the actual points that I raise, is just further proof of this. You see, the mind also suffers a kind of arthritis. That's why the over sixties simply cannot understand the model. So indeed, I'd rather suggest that you don't read it. I'd hate it if it made you any more apoplectic.

I actually de-registered from the forum - ThAT Sophiecentaur - an example of 'pique' which you've accused me of before. Your preveious reference was inappropriate. But I've now re-registered. I'll tell you why. I realise that your reaction to my field model is entirely understandable. I'd overlooked the fact that you're at that age where you simply can't bend your mind around new concepts. How stupid of me. For a while there I thought your opinion mattered.

That you tend to bluster and complain, and dismiss my efforts with such wide, sweeping criticisms - rather than tackle the actual points that I raise, is just further proof of this. You see, the mind also suffers a kind of arthritis. That's why the over sixties simply cannot understand the model. So indeed, I'd rather suggest that you don't read it. I'd hate it if it made you any more apoplectic.

I've known Sophiecentaur on here for a while now, and I'm afraid your judgement of his character is way off the mark. His age is irrelevant, and his opinion is one that I would value.

I think there are a few reasons why your hypothesis riles people (bearing in mind that I have not read it - as I said before, it's not my field). Firstly, if you don't understand the conventional model, then how can you be in any position to claim your model is superior? And secondly, the conventional model is backed up with years of research and, importantly, the maths behind it.

But, getting back to the circuit. Where in industry would you find a similar circuit? Why do you not think that over unity equates to perpetual motion? Would it not be an interesting follow up to extract that heat for electricity generation and see how much you generate?

BenV - where do I find that neat trick that you guys do with quotes. I can't find it?

'I've known Sophiecentaur on here for a while now, and I'm afraid your judgement of his character is way off the mark. His age is irrelevant, and his opinion is one that I would value.'

I have no comments to make about Sophiecentaur's character. I have looked at his posts and I find them entertaining, informative and witty. As a contributer to the forum I think he's a very real asset. In fact I have taken the trouble to read just about everything that he's written here and that's simply because I find his acuity and wit both readable and enjoyable. It is precisely because of this that I tolerated his early first post in the thread and tried, notwithstanding - to solicit his interest. I'm not sure how objective you're prepared to be, but read it for yourself.

I think there are a few reasons why your hypothesis riles people (bearing in mind that I have not read it - as I said before, it's not my field).

My hypothisis - if such it is, only riles the older academic physicist. I know this. Younger ones tend to tolerate it better. And I will put on record that two such, also academics, actually appear to understand it. The surprise was to find a non-academic also objecting in the same way that other older academics object. I presumed to see a parallel here. And if I took exception it's because - by the best calculation Sophiecentaur 'glanced' at the paper for a maximum period of 4 minutes.

Firstly, if you don't understand the conventional model, then how can you be in any position to claim your model is superior?

I cannot understand the existing model because it makes no sense. Let me point out a little known truth. Nobody knows what energy is. It is known to be sourced from four forces, some say three. These are gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. Some people ascribe the weak nuclear force to the electromagnetic force. The miracle of our physicicts is that, notwithstanding this lack of knowledge, they are able to use and apply their knowledge of these forces with breathtaking and impeccable accuracy. That is the truly amazing.

But notwithstanding this no-one actually knows what energy is. The fact that current flow is ascribed to the flow of electrons is still a question that is actually also still out there. If it flows as a current - like a stream of something - then it flatly contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle. And Dyson emphatically states that it is not the flow of electrons. So does Gary Zukov in his book - the dancing wu li masters. If it is not a 'flow' but rather the interaction of 'clouds' of valence electrons with sundry ions in various structures and amalgams, then what is added to a battery when it's flat and needs to be recharged? It can't be electrons because electrons are widely considered to be stable particles, and not able to decay. So whatever property is re-introduced to the battery during the recharge process, cannot be more electrons else your average battery would eventually be chockablock full of a surplus of electrons. Nor are electrons simply able to change their charge or indeed any of their properties.

However, there is a possibility that one electron can decay into two photons in certain unstable atoms. And therefore it can be argued that electrons decay at the various work stations as photons. This is because photons are known and measured to be dissipated at resistive loads. This would be consistent with measured evidence. But an extension of this argument then requires that your average generator would need to also generate an inexhaustible supply of spare electrons in order to account for the amount of heat dissipated at your average household and the vast number of such houses connected to your average supply grid. This is somewhat unlikely. And even if this were managed, the question remains. Where do these spare electrons come from? And so it goes. Wiki explanation of current flow is so full of holes it's almost comical. Whatever comprises a current flow is defintely not consistent with classical theories of this.

What I am daring to point to is that the entire field of quantum electromagnetic dynamics is not entirely consistent. That it is the single most extraordinary field of endeavour with - among all branches of phyics - the most consistent and effective reach in its applications - does not also put it beyond the reach of further questioning and analysis. Yet there are those in the field of physics and engineering who are offended at any questions applied to its fundamentals. They say it is a complete theory.

And secondly, the conventional model is backed up with years of research and, importantly, the maths behind it.

I have never objected to the research or the math. I apply myself to the former and use the tools of the latter strictly in terms of classical methods.

But, getting back to the circuit. Where in industry would you find a similar circuit? Why do you not think that over unity equates to perpetual motion? Would it not be an interesting follow up to extract that heat for electricity generation and see how much you generate?

The circuit, as mentioned by Sophiecentaur and, indeed myself, is used everywhere. I have spoken and spoken about perpetual motion. Please do not ask me to go over those points again. They're here, in the early part of this thread.

Your last question is beyond my abilities and I'm just not that interested. I do not have perpetual motion. The thought that this could ever happen on an electric circuit has nothing to do with my claim. In any event I would not know how to. It's like saying, I see you have arms. But can you fly? Perhaps someone else can do that. I believe these tests have been done or are intended - on another forum? But I do not belong to that forum and I think it's inappropriate to interfere with that progress.

BenV. This is a challenging field. That I continually point out my own inabilities is really intended. But I would ask you, by the same token, not to underestimate what little I do know.

Logged

lyner

I think I am allowed to reply to you unworthy personal attack, witsend.I spent longer than you claimed on reading that paper of yours and I have spent some more, subsequently. My re-reading merely confirms what I thought at first. My arthritic brain has clearly not lost its capacity for rapidly absorbing new information.Your 'Theory' / 'model' is neither a theory nor a model. It does not give any indication of how to predict the outcome of any of the situations it claims to deal with because there are no numbers involved. (Except regarding Quarks. Do you have any idea what a quark IS? Do you know where they fit into the history of fundamental particle research and theory? Apart from having a quirky name, what was it that appealed to you about them?)The paper is, in fact 'just chat' about a large number of Science topics, involving some advanced concepts.

You have, actually, been disingenuous in your replies to many of my questions. You claim that your theory "naturally" led you to the sort of circuit on which you did your tests. You claim to know very little of electronics (your lack of knowledge of metal film resistors and capacitors confirms this) yet you, out of the blue, chose to devise a circuit involving a MOSfet (a fairly sophisticated device, as a matter of fact).I have to conclude that someone else must have suggested and designed the circuit (nothing wrong with that, in principle, of course but you could have mentioned it) and that it, in fact, came quite independently of any 'field theory'. Why are you not prepared to publish the causal link between your 'blue' paper and the design of the circuit? What calculations revealed to you the specific conditions that would make the circuit work?Where is the consistency in your message? On the one hand you assume that you are qualified to discuss the structures of electrons and protons but you admit to not knowing about the operation of a Cathode ray tube. You talk of atomic structure as if your model can explain it all. Does your model predict the wavelengths of the series of spectral lines that Hydrogen atoms produce? The old model, for which you have no time, did that nearly 100 years ago.You mention "strings". Well, that is extremely brave of someone who claims to know little of Science. Do you know about multiple dimensions of the space which is required for string theory?There is a section on "fire and combustion" as if this were some mystical situation. It's just Chemistry, isn't it? And Black holes are mentioned. Where is the detail of how your theory can relate to them? You "suspect that fast moving magnetic fields may be the source". On what possible, numerical, grounds can you make that statement?

I have made this point many times but I will repeat it. If Science is as useless as you claim it to be then how is it that you are using the internet at this moment? Scientists had to be right about Optics, Space Physics, Electronics and Materials Science to a very high degree of (Numerical) accuracy in all these fields in order to let you talk to us on your computer. You claim that it "doesn't make sense to you". You are making confident use of it all day and every day. I think you owe it to the system to learn a bit more about it before you try to dismantle it. "Know your enemy".

If you want to get involved with Science, then you owe it some respect. I don't mean respect for individuals; I mean respect for the system. There are ground rules which, if you don't follow, you can't consider your work to be Science.First rule is: learn as much as possible about the existing system. If you aren't prepared to do that then it's just not worth while going further.Second rule is: if you want to advance Science with new ideas, they must embrace and explain (quantitatively) all of the reputable evidence to date.Third rule: remember that 'Arm waving' is not Science. (That's the same as rule 2, effectively)Fourth rule: don't get ratty when people disagree with you or dismiss you ideas. It may just be that they know better than you and have enough experience to spot flaws that you may have missed

BTW, there's an "Insert Quote" icon on the toolbar when you 'reply' or 'modify' a message. Or you can do "square bracket" quote] blah blah blah[/quote] in the quick reply. The first "square bracket" had to be in text or you'd have just seen a quote.

If you dismiss the model on the basis of it having no predictive value how then do you explain the prediction that unity could be exceed on electric circuitry? I could also reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron as proof of the composite nature of stable particles. I also gave the particle a charge, velocity and mass - and, for that matter, a name.

I've described MY definition of quark - in the paper. It is that particle that anchors a stable particle outside the field. Could you understand the explanation? But the problem with my stable particle is that photons and electrons also need a quark. That is NOT in line with conventional physics.

You claim that the paper is 'just chat'. If it is chat - it's relevant, and I think lucid.

You claim that your theory "naturally" led you to the sort of circuit on which you did your tests.

Indeed. And I'll say it again.

Not only did I describe why I put the circuit together but I told you the names of the people involved. Do you read anything in these threads or do you imaagine what's written? I expressly advised you about my conversation with Professors Violie and Claymans. I then found Bernard Bulak in the yellow pages, looking for work. He put the first circuit together. Unfortunately he was very sick. I then found Brian Buckley. Brian put the circuit together with more senstive switches. Thereafter the numbers became ever more and more evident. We tested over a period of 4 years. I went on a steep learning curve. I've written all this. All I wanted to do was to interrupt a current so that I could induce reversed magnetic fields to return it to recharge the source. And while doing so, I also needed to get that current through the load. That way, it doesn't take genius, I knew that the product of the energy dissipated at the load would exceed the sum of the energy delivered by the battery.

If you're asking for the relevance of the circuit to my theory I'll explain it again. Gladly. The Laws of Induction - Farraday and then Maxwel. Farraday determined that a changing magnetic field induces and electric field. Then, Maxwell - a changing electric field also induces a magnetic field. But no-one could tell me how a magnetic field interacts - very energetically - with another magnetic field. I asked - everywhere. I looked - everywhere. The only thing I found was reference to one paper - forget which - that had inconclusive evidence of an electric field.

That was when I tried to find my own answers. I cannot understand your average text book. I've never done any science or math. But I could do my own patterns to represent charge. I've also written this. I need symmetry. And to get to symmetry I use patterns. And to fully understand this I also used magnets. Lots of them. I proposed that we can't see the particle in the field because it's just way too fast. But where does it come from? Why does it do all this? These things I tried to answer in my field model. I used simple deductive logic - a dialectic, also principles that I call correspondence principles - and symmetry. My only rule was that it had to match known facts. I've written it in my model. I've also described it in these posts.

And what I concluded is that these little particles, - I described it as a modest little particle with a really presumptuous reach - could actually be all that is needed. I concluded that the universe is a 10 dimensional binary system comprising nothing but lots and lots of this particle.

If I talk about the atomic structure at all - it's to suggest that the particle could be conceived in fractal geometry. I have read and do understand classical models of the all these atoms. I've told you that my rule was that the model had to conform to known physics. To the best of my knowledge my composite particles precisely conform to the properties of these stable particles.

I ascribe the model to having coincidence with string theories - not because I understand string theories but because I know that string theorists need many dimensions, in most cases more than I do. You must remember that string theorists are the ONLY ones who can get to a unifying principle. The problem is they propose a particle that no-one can find. I know this. They've been looking for 10 years for either a heavy bosun - ? can't remember which or a tachyon. Huge amounts of money have gone into this. To date - approximately ten years after the event they have found absolutely nothing. Their last hope is at Cern - or at some new accellerator? I forget where. Whatever, I only need 10 dimensions. I've precisely described the reasoning that led me to this in my field model. Have you read it? Not the generalised conclusions. The actual dialectic that led to the development of those dimensions.

I'm glad you asked about fire and combusion. This, like current flow - is one of those things that are explained without being explained. I was watching Discovery one night and one of the scientists actually mentioned that no-one had actually ever been able to explain fire. I think it's defined as a chemical reaction? requiring oxygen. I'm not sure how a nuclear 'fire' is explained. In any event. I only added my own take on 'fire' because it's so entirely explicable in terms of my model. More to the point - if the explanation is right - then it has the advantage of proving that atomic, molecular and all amalgams are bound together by these fields.

Did you read my post of gravity? And the Casimir effect?

Where have I ever criticised science. I love it. Passionately. I am in awe of the Giants and I envy the training of conventional scients. I am entirely blown away by physics. I have nothing but the highest praise and esteem for it anyone who tries to progress it. I study it - to the best of my abilities - all aspects of it. This is no half-hearted love affair. It's all engrossing. It's just that its proponents are very often intractable, critical, smug, unbending, dismissive or just simply too old.

Your 4th rule. If they know better - then let them explain the 'flaw' - not the general impression - the ACTUAL flaw, both in my model and in my experiment.

Had you found it in yourself to say anything constructive, then I might also have been able to accuse you of being objective and unbiased.

Thanks for the explanation of Quotes. I'll try it next time.

« Last Edit: 05/06/2009 19:32:47 by witsend »

Logged

lyner

I was attacking the paper - not you, witsend. There is a difference.Where have you demonstrated that any of you ideas actually produce a number, such as the mass size ratio? Do we all just accept that you have done it or are you prepared to show it on paper? It is not enough just to say you understand this and don't understand that but everyone must accept what you say.

Quote

And what I concluded is that these little particles, - I described it as a modest little particle with a really presumptuous reach - could actually be all that is needed. I concluded that the universe is a 10 dimensional binary system comprising nothing but lots and lots of this particle.

What sort of a scientific statement is that? Where is the basis?

Quote

I cannot understand your average text book.

If you don't want to join the club then you can't expect the club to accept what you have to say.

The same goes for all the other things in the paper which claim to have been sorted out. Science is involved, from beginning to end, with NUMBERS. There are no numbers in the paper so it does not constitute Science. Do you not appreciate that?The Paper just talks, vaguely, of what you claim to have done - you need to spell it out or it is of no significance.Like I said - does it reveal what actual wavelengths of light a Hydrogen Atom should emit? That would be real Science.Could I use that Paper as a basis for building a Nuclear Reactor or planning a mission to Mars? No. Why not? Because there are no numbers - no hard facts - just arm wavings. They describe an alternative world which is, possibly, fascinating but it is just fantasy. It wouldn't allow you to calculate where to put two kids to balance them on a seesaw, leave alone explain and predict how an electron might behave.

What logical step could possibly take you from your paper to the circuit? In fact, why did you choose an electronic experiment? Without the backup of statements like "The inductance of a coil would be X microhenries and the rate of change of current would be Y A/second, so the induced emf would be Z and that should appear blahh blahh.." with X and Y stated, then it is without substance. I know from bitter experience, that 'hopefully' assembling circuits produces nothing useful. Successful circuit design requires knowledge and care. Where was your design philosophy for the experiment. Where (again) did you get the parameter values? "Try 12V"," Try 56ohms", "Try 6.73kHz", "See if it works"?If you did more than that, you need to publish the details to be taken seriously. I don't think you actually want to be pressed in that direction. I can't think why (if you are for real, that is).

Sophiecentaur, I know now that you have not really studied my writing. I refer to specific comments by you and you bypass them to jump to another criticism. I have detailed numbers, as you refer to it - on all aspects of the model, right up to and including stable particles. That I've expressed the model with words is because, as I've written, I could hardly expect anyone to understand my patterns. And I certainly do not know math, other than the simple elementary analysis required for measuring electric energy. The predictive properties of the model are impeccable. They precisely account for dark energy and dark matter. It precisely accounts for the difference in the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. It precisely identifies the 'thing' that determines our speed of light constant. And it has the added advantage of explaining paradoxes that relate to superluminal communication and others.

What is irritating you is that I, as a non-scientist - can propose anything at all. Well you see, logic is not the exclusive property of science. And after all these years I think perhaps I am a kind of scientist. Maybe a conceptual scientist.

What I have not done is submit the model it for publication. Are you suggesting that I may not therefore share it? Or are you proposing that if I dare do so, that people such as you - will simply not take it seriously? I don't mind if you don't take it seriously. I'm hoping that there are younger minds out there who will be curious enough to test the experimental apparatus. And that others will take up the insights in the model and use them wherever they can. If, as I have proposed, broken symmetries are, in fact, the source of all energy, then indeed it would be possible to exceed the constraints of gravity, light speed, et al. It's all there in the model. It just needs to be understood.

In a previous post you made a list of allegations. I answered them on a point by point basis. Can you please extend that courtesy?

Logged

lyner

Show me just a few of these numbers - and how you arrive at them - and I'll start to take your work seriously.If you insist on using a private, arcane language then you are onto a loser. Do you expect the rest of us to learn your private language? That's a lot to ask, you realise?

I hope that "younger minds" will always exist who are prepared to go through the rigorous process of learning all the existing stuff before they launch into their own private Science Worlds. Without them it will be just Babel and the dialogue of the deaf.Communication is absolutely essential and that involves a common language for getting ideas across - i.e. mathematics.Without it there's a dead end.Even a "conceptual Scientist" must be able to communicate what she has found or the effort is wasted.

Quote

The predictive properties of the model are impeccable.

And you expect me to take that on trust, do you?In my opinion, you have insulated yourself from the rest of Science, by refusing to use Maths so that the theory need not be subjected to serious scrutiny.

As for your experiment, I no longer have ready access to the equipment and so I would need a very convincing reason to approach anyone who would allow me to use theirs (I couldn't convince them either, of course). The problem is that, although you have produced a lot of figures, the basic scenario and theory are not there so I would not be inclined to bother to duplicate it. The paper describing the experiment is, in fact, incomplete. It needs bookwork and theory and an actual reason for carrying it out. I'm afraid you will have to translate what you want to say into 'common language' if you want to take it further.You 'could' have what we would call an anomaly or you could simply have an experimental fault which has been common to all your results. It may upset you that people are reluctant to get involved but what you don't seem to realise is that Science (as we know it) has an incredible degree of consistency, across different Labs, different times and different workers. Your effect would have been seen already. You have been very imprecise in defining the precision required for the operating parameters to obtain the effect . Without a much better reason, I have to doubt that your results imply anything new. I, and anyone else I know, would look, exhaustively, for the flaw / anomaly before daring to suggest a new phenomenon. You, by your own admission, do not appear to know enough about Electronics to find a flaw.Perhaps an alternative approach would help to get your message across - learn some Maths if you really want to convince people.

If the photon comprises two zipons then the zipon would be half the size of the photon. It is proposed that velocity and mass have an inverse proportional relationship. So, if the photon moves at the speed of light (C) then the velocity of the zipon would be 2C. And as velocity and mass are inversely proportional so, if the mass of the photon were given as 1, (as a ratio) then the zipon would be 0.5. If the electron comprises 3 truants then its mass would be 0.5 x 3 = 1.5. And, if the proton comprises three electrons then, each electron would comprise 0.5 for the quark. 3 quarks having no volume is 0.5 x 3 = 1.5. Four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the second truant is 1.5 x 4 = 6. And four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the third truant is 6 x 4 = 24. The second and third truant only have two dimensions of volume as they manifest within a prescribed space, that merry-go-round referred to in the field description. Therefore, 3 second truants, having length and breadth is 6 x 6 x 3 = 108. 3 third truants having length and breadth is 24 x 24 x 3 = 1728. This gives a mass of 1837.5, minus 1.5 for the quarks that have neither volume or mass, giving a total of 1836. Some variation of this number is, no doubt, required to accommodate the spherical shape of the truants, but it’s complex – a 2 dimensional sphere.

This model requires a triplet structure - and the first second and third truants can be precisely equated to the quark, pion and gluon. The difference between my model and classical is that the proton itself would then be a composite of 3 electrons. Again. It's detailed in the field model. But it gives a simple conceptual structure of this that may be easier to grasp than classical representation.

I have never said that I do not know enough to find a flaw. What I have acknowledged is that those experts that have replicated the experiment have not been able to find the flaw.

Sophiecentaur - first you said -'show me a working model and I will believe you'. Then you said words to the effect, explain your reasoning before I can believe you. Now you say - go and learn math before I take this seriously. You know what. I don't believe you. You will never find the precise conditions to evaluate this model. And I suspect it is because you simply cannot understand it. Now you say that the theory is arcane? How many more insults can you throw at this? Why do you not answer the extraordinary parallels between the casimir effect, mass size ratios the correspondence with string theories? I know why. Because you simply cannot understand the model and nor can you admit it. So you knock it.

« Last Edit: 05/06/2009 21:31:19 by witsend »

Logged

lyner

If you are 'true' to Science, then you should want me to be able to make it work and, you would want to give me the precise conditions to make it work. You would, I suspect, rather believe that I would avoid finding the 'winning combination'.

Those numbers in your last post mean nothing on their own, I'm afraid. Have you heard of Numerology? When you do actual measurements, you get non integer results. Things don't add up that way in practice. You get mass defects when you bolt particles together. It is statistics that give values like the charge and mass of an electron - and they are constantly being refined. You are assuming a lot if you say that you can state the volumes with integer values.You say I would not 'understand' the model. There is nothing to understand. I could, perhaps, memorise it off by heart but that is a different matter. I could even, possibly, suss out what you are getting at in a bit more detail. But that wouldn't make the hypothesis correct.

If you could show, with numbers, how your model accounts for the Hydrogen lines then you might start to convince me that it could have some substance. That is the simplest atomic model and, as I said before, it was the first one to be solved. Surely your system could do that. Surely you want it to.

There's a challenge for you. Real Science deals with non integer quantities. Your 'Science' has to do the same. No question.

I am indeed true to science. Let me tell you the extent of this. I have a 'machine' that is able to dissipate more energy than it delivers. I showed this everywhere. I was then told that others may steal the idea and patent it. So I patented it and then allowed the patent to lapse. This was to ensure that prior publication would prevent ANYONE from calling for royalties, including myself. I want to progess this knowledge. And progressing it takes up huge chapters of my life - the time spent on this forum may be proof. The winning combination is in the experimental apparatus but MUCH, MUCH more so, in the actual field model.

Sophiecentaur - this is from the heart. If I was looking for fame, glory, or anything other than the interests of the 'furtherance of knowledge' - I would not be tediously advancing my credentials on this forum - with the utmost respect. I have never knocked on the doors of our media. Where the Pretoria News got that article I will never know. Nor will I know who posted it on the web. The only published article that I knew of was in the Sunday Times (SA) where I actively co-operated to draw the public's attention to the Quatum article. I have never tried to 'bluff' a prestige that I do not have. On the contrary I have always stressed my lack of qualification. This was in the hopes that others who are qualified can pick up on the insights and use them. I've mentioned it in this thread. I've also stressed it in the IET paper. I am only a layman. But I'm intensely logical and I have a flair for number relationships and patterns. But, thank God, I am an outsider to science. Had I been schooled in any conventional sense then I would never have 'found the flaw' because I would also then have been looking in the wrong place.

I'm editing this because I anticipate BenV and others objecting to my pointing at a 'flaw'. Here's the thing. Since the advent of quantum mechanics and all the explosive insights that this afforded there has not been any further progress in science. The only progress that has been breathtakingly evident is also in the wide range of the applications enabled as they were by our quantum giants. And yet there are many questions still out there.

Bear in mind that Pauli and Bohr actively discouraged 'conceptualising' the particle or the atom. Originally there was even objection to Feynman's diagrams. Well that to me was really challenging. Why not represent things conceptually? Why can an understanding of physics not be progressed from a more profound level. Einstein himself was unhappy with the quantum disciplines of aggregate evidence. And I've seen everywhere, even on this forum, the result of not having a conceptual understanding. Why knock it if it may also help? I have never disputed that the measurements of our scientists is wrong. On the contrary. They are a miracle all on their own.

But I have my own tools of logic. And they reach exactly the same conclusions of measured evidence and point to other things. I'm exhausted. This is written in my defense. I'll deal with your questions later.

Indeed. There have been NO fundamental revisions of quantum mechanics, only refinements. And Quantum mechanics cannot get to a unifying principle. So far, as written only our string theorists have been able to reconcile this.

Let me say it another way. Quantum mechanics has enabled a a technological revolution. It has not promoted a fundamental understanding. Don't blame me for this observation. It's shared by every academic I have ever spoken to and is referenced in many published papers.

Indeed. There have been NO fundamental revisions of quantum mechanics, only refinements. And Quantum mechanics cannot get to a unifying principle. So far, as written only our string theorists have been able to reconcile this.

Let me say it another way. Quantum mechanics has enabled a a technological revolution. It has not promoted a fundamental understanding. Don't blame me for this observation. It's shared by every academic I have ever spoken to and is referenced in many published papers.

As I read this discussion it reminds me of myself each time I finish my theory. For a period of time I feel it is perfect. Then the response from others is either negative or non-existant. In the meanwhile I look for alternatives. I always find better ideas. There are too many ideas out there. I have tried to ignore others during all my many years of effort. There is so much to do just on my own ideas. How can anyones brain handle all the competing ideas?

"The trouble with physics" by Lee Smolin illustratesthe sad point that there are millions of physicists all struggling to come up with original and useful ideas.Who could compete with that? The greatest brains in the world are stuck with little more than string theory which Smolin has discounted after many years. So people waste their lives on untimately meaningless stuff.

Every time I patented something I thought was useful, it was an economic flop. There are so many people doing the same and only those with money sources can succeed.

I was in the Patent office in Washington around 1970 checking out my motion sensor when I heard two patent lawyers. One said:

"Most of these patents here are not worth the paper they are printed on" In 1956 I started working for Con Edison in New York City when I was 17 1/2 years old. I moved to a rooming house next to Gramacy park. After work I went to Union Square park for the discussions. Now we have the Internet for discussions. Years ago it was public parks.

One man brought his talking coconut in a small case to the park everyday. He would tell everyone what his coconut said the night before. The people would argue that the coconut could not talk. He would argue that it only talks to him.

After many months I moved to Brooklyn and no longer heard the talking coconut discussions.

As hard as things are, it is important to look at the alternatives to every theory. I asked a wise old Rabbi how to find truth. He said:

"Deny everything until you can no longer deny it"

Well after I finish a work, I start to deny it. This causes part or all of the work to disintegrate. Therefore each person must first deny his own theory before he can feel secure that others would believe it.

Hi JerryGG38 - nice to see you on this thread. I like your old rabbi's advice to just keep denying. I've been headbutting and it's getting boring. Nice to be reminded not to take oneself too seriously.

I agree. There's way to many ideas out there. But how fascinating. I've just seen Photonic theory. Where did that come from? It must have been sleeping lower down in the list. And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production? I've got plenty to keep me busy. Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations. I might have to ask you to define them for me.

I'd love to know what you think of the latter. I can't get my mind around a neutral particle like a photon creating a gravitational field. But I'm still wrestling with it.

I wish I could see an old list of 'theories' - there must be some gems.

I agree. There's way to many ideas out there. But how fascinating. I've just seen Photonic theory. Where did that come from? It must have been sleeping lower down in the list. And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production? I've got plenty to keep me busy. Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations. I might have to ask you to define them for me.

The two papers you reference share very similar concepts. One of the main concepts is the size of the electron. We both see this size as having a circumference equal to the wavelength of a photon of the same mass equivalence.

I've studied many alternative theories; and you are right, there are lots of real gems. Many are similar to the device you propose. One seeks to charge an inductor, then break the circuit and capture the back EMF generated by the field collapse of the inductor. This looks like what you're doing.

Then there are many over-unity claims using AC motors in tuned circuits. These can be very efficient, as in our newer air conditioners, but none are really over-unity.

Hi Vern. I've seen your profile and you're also an electrical engineer. How do you explain current flow?

I've just seen your thread - and am fascinated. But I cannot see why it is relevant to a unifying theory. Can I impose on you to explain this?

Regarding the experiment - I can only ask anyone interested to test it for themselves. Or dismiss it. But don't please presume it's wrong until you've established it experimentally. Sophiecentaur seems to think that he must first be overwhelmingly convinced from the argument to justify the phenomenon. Perhaps he's right. But my argument appears to be too obtuse - which I find extraordinary. I use simple language and simple logic. I think it's the simplicity that everyone find's offensive. If collapsing fields in the inductor did not generate a second cycle of electric current then our inductive laws are wrong.

It strikes me that you guys have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain away the benefit of this. Phase lag and wasteage aside, the measurable gain is extraordinary and unequivocal.

Hi Vern. I've seen your profile and you're also an electrical engineer. How do you explain current flow?

I've just seen your thread - and am fascinated. But I cannot see why it is relevant to a unifying theory. Can I impose on you to explain this?

I'm not an electrical engineer; those guys work the power grid; I'm an electronics engineer; we play with computer circuitry and such. Current flow is pretty well established as the movement of electrons. We suspect this because we can physically move electrons and notice that they produce all the effects we see around a wire that is carrying electric current.

A unification theory shows how all four forces of nature can be the same thing. My speculation is that all the forces are electromagnetic. The other thread you referenced contains the same speculation. It seems that we independently came up with the same equation for electron size.

Quote from: witsend

It strikes me that you guys have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain away the benefit of this. Phase lag and wasteage aside, the measurable gain is extraordinary and unequivocal.

Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.

Still puzzled. I thought the mass/size of an electron was known? Is it variable within a field? In other words is it able to express a range of frequencies like the photon?

Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.

Our scientific history speaks to this kind of certainty.

Sorry - this is the third modification of this post. If the fundamental force is electromagnetic then, presumably all is constrained to light speed? How then do you accommodate the non-locality paradoxes?

Still puzzled. I thought the mass/size of an electron was known? Is it variable within a field? In other words is it able to express a range of frequencies like the photon?

The mass of the electron is known to a high precision, however all attempts to measure its size have found nothing. The mass and size are constants. Mainstream physics holds that the electron is a point from which charge emanates. We suggest that charge emanates from a shell equal in circumference to the wave length of equivalent energy.

Quote

Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.

Our scientific history speaks to this kind of certainty.

Yes; I know of many accounts.

Quote

Sorry - this is the third modification of this post. If the fundamental force is electromagnetic then, presumably all is constrained to light speed? How then do you accommodate the non-locality paradoxes?

Yes; all is constrained to light speed, since in our scheme, everything is made of light. Your scheme has everything made of a composite of sub-particles moving at twice the speed of light. Non-locality entanglements suggest infinite speed.

I am puzzled by non-locality entanglements just as are most physicists.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.